Vocabularies and DBMSs
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:53:56 +0300
Message-ID: <40c8912e_at_post.usenet.com>
- Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
news:ca9obu$91l$1_at_news.netins.net...
> "mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message
> news:40c7ac7c$0$559$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> > Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:
> > > It is relational folks who become democratic about this and start
> thinking
> > > about understanding the nature of any particular noun outside of its
use
> in
> > > "this" context. Define it based on its use and if a new use comes up,
> > > redefine it if necessary, otherwise add qualifiers to it.
> >
> > The first department to get a database wins.
> > The rest has to jiggle their stuff into the imposed hierarchy.
>
> Not at all! Dept #2 identifies their major entities, some of which might
> align with Dept #1, others of which might be able to see information that
> Dept #1 maintains. There actually is no issue whatsoever that crops up
> here. There could be the usual types of changes that need to be made --
> adding files, fields, functions, but it works just fine and again I'll
have
> to think of how to make that perfectly clear.
Do you think that one departament is the 'owner' of the data its produces ? They are the only one that update "their" data ? Or that it is a single "view" of data for all application/users that maintain that data ?
I'm sure you can provide a more clear description by not mixing levels and by mentioning the role of 'vocabulary' (so foreign to "relational world").
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=